ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: Faster And More Interventionist Arbitration

The ICC has published its updated arbitration rules (the 2026 Rules), which enter into force on 1 June 2026. The 2026 Rules will apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after that date unless the parties have agreed to submit to an earlier version of the ICC rules. There are several significant changes, notably the removal of the Terms of Reference, which has been a distinguishing feature of ICC arbitration for some time. The 2026 Rules also introduce a new “highly expedited arbitration procedure” (HEAP) to sit alongside the existing emergency arbitrator (EA) and expedited procedure provisions (EPP), as well as expansions of both the EA and EPP processes. The remaining changes are directed at modernising ICC arbitration, enhancing clarity and efficiency, and strengthening the arbitral process through ICC oversight.

Removal of the Terms of Reference

The most significant change in the new Rules is the removal of the tribunal’s obligation to draw up Terms of Reference (ToR). The original function of the ToR was to confirm the parties’ consent to arbitrate (as historically some jurisdictions required a post-submission agreement), record key procedural agreements at an early stage and define the scope of the dispute. In recent years, however, their key advantage has been to help parties clarify the scope of the dispute and the issues to be determined. Although the ToR are no longer a required step in ICC proceedings, the ICC has confirmed that tribunals retain discretion to establish them where appropriate as a case management tool. This may be addressed in an updated Note to Parties, though this is not yet available.

A key consequence is that the new deadline for claims, absent permission of the tribunal, will be the first CMC, which must be held within 30 days of the transmission of the file to the tribunal (Article 25). Whilst the timescale for articulating all claims remains the same, the practical impact of this change is that it means greater emphasis will be placed on the Request for Arbitration and Answer, which will need to set out claims “as fully and as comprehensively as possible”, as explained by the ICC here. The first CMC will also take on greater prominence as the forum for articulating the scope of the dispute. In determining whether to authorise new claims after the CMC, the tribunal shall take into account (i) the nature of the new claims, (ii) the stage of proceedings, (iii) cost implications and (iv) any other relevant circumstances (Article 25).

Enhancements to the Expedited Procedure Provisions (EPP), including the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions (HEAP)

The 2026 Rules introduce two significant changes to the EPP. The first is a new “highly expedited” procedure set out in Appendix IV, under which tribunals are required to issue an award within three months of the CMC — notably, this period runs from the case management conference rather than from the filing of the Request for Arbitration, but is nonetheless ambitious given that the previous default six-month deadline for rendering awards from the Terms of Reference under Article 31 of the 2021 Rules was routinely exceeded in practice. Unlike the EPP, HEAP applies strictly on an opt-in basis, with no automatic application or threshold amount, and parties may elect it for disputes of any size at the drafting stage or once the dispute has arisen. The ICC notes that HEAP is best suited to lower-complexity commercial disputes, claims with a simple factual matrix or discrete aspects of a dispute requiring swift resolution. Joinder and consolidation are not available under HEAP, and parties must front-load their submissions and evidence — a Statement of Claim must be filed with the Request for Arbitration, and a Statement of Defence with the Answer. Another notable feature is that parties may agree to an award without reasons (see Article 7(2) of Appendix IV). The ICC advises parties to consider any enforcement implications in jurisdictions where the absence of reasons may provide grounds to set aside or refuse enforcement of the award – see here.

The second change is an increase to the threshold for the automatic application of the EPP to USD 4 million for claims brought under arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026, with prior thresholds continuing to apply to earlier arbitration agreements (see Article 1 of Appendix V). This broadens the range of disputes eligible for expedited arbitration, recognising that the procedure is often adopted in higher-value cases. Parties remain free to opt in to or out of the EPP regardless of the threshold, depending on the nature and complexity of the dispute.

Newly introduced Emergency Arbitration (EA) Provisions

Under the 2021 Rules, the EA provisions applied only to “parties that are either signatories of the arbitration agreement…or successors to such signatories”. The 2026 Rules expand this to include “any party for which the President is satisfied, based on information in the Application, that an arbitration agreement binding such party may exist” (Appendix IV, Article 1(2)(c)). This is a prima facie assessment only, with the tribunal retaining authority to make a final determination on jurisdiction in the main proceedings. The EA provisions also now expressly confirm that they do not apply where the arbitration agreement is contained in an investment protection law (in addition to investment treaties) (Appendix IC, Article 1(3)(c)).

The 2026 Rules also, for the first time, allow parties to request preliminary orders within EA proceedings, including on an ex parte basis, to prevent another party from frustrating the purpose of the EA application (see Article 7(1) of Appendix IV). The ICC has noted that ex parte requests are envisaged where prior notification could undermine the effectiveness of the relief sought, such as in cases of potential asset dissipation or destruction of evidence. Where such an order is granted, all other parties must be notified immediately and afforded a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and the EA retains power to modify or revoke the order.

Express early determination provision

Article 30 provides that a party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for an early determination that one or more claims or defences are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Although this is a new addition to the 2026 Rules, it reflects guidance that was previously included in the Note to Parties.

Enhanced arbitrator disclosure requirements

The 2026 Rules maintain the existing disclosure standard and the ongoing nature of the arbitrator’s obligation to disclose. However, two clarifications previously contained in the Note to Parties have now been codified: Article 12(2) provides that any doubts as to whether to make a disclosure shall be resolved in favour of disclosure, and Article 12(4) confirms that disclosure does not, by itself, establish a lack of independence or impartiality.

Article 12 also introduces a new obligation on parties. Pursuant to Article 12(5), parties must submit to the Secretariat a list of “persons and entities which they believe the prospective arbitrators and arbitrators should consider and the reasons thereof", which will be incorporated into the case information document transmitted to prospective arbitrators to assist their own assessment as to whether a disclosure is required.

Time limit for awards

The longstanding default time limit of six months from the ToR for the rendering of the final award has been removed. Instead, as soon as possible after the last hearing, the tribunal must inform the ICC Secretariat and the parties of the date by which it intends to submit its draft award to the ICC court for approval (see Article 28). The time limit for rendering awards will now be determined by the President of the ICC, taking into account the procedural timetable or a reasoned request from the arbitral tribunal (Article 34). This appears intended to ensure a more flexible approach, giving parties greater predictability as to when the award will be issued.

Confidentiality

Although the ICC considered introducing default confidentiality for ICC arbitrations, it ultimately decided against this, which means that parties will need to agree confidentiality or apply to the tribunal for a confidentiality order. However, Article 12(8) imposes an express obligation on the tribunal to “keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration unless otherwise in the public domain, agreed by the parties, required by applicable law, or necessary to protect a legal right or comply with disclosure obligations”. Article 23(3) also provides that, at the request of any party, the arbitral tribunal may make orders concerning the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings or of any other matters in connection with the arbitration and may take measures to protect trade secrets and confidential information, which is consistent with the position under the 2021 Rules.

Other changes

Additional changes include, amongst others:

• The joinder provisions have been amended to confirm that, once the tribunal has been constituted, an additional party may be joined to an arbitration with its consent. This departs from the 2021 Rules, which required the consent of all parties or a tribunal decision. It is noteworthy that the consolidation requirements remain unchanged (see Article 11).
• The 2026 Rules contain express provisions regarding tribunal secretaries, which were previously in the Note to Parties.
• The ICC has now moved to electronic service of documents by default. Arbitrators can also sign awards electronically after consulting with the parties, although parties will still be able to request hard copies. 
• Parties now have a longer period of 45 days (as opposed to 30 days) to apply to correct awards. Parties should be mindful of how this extended period may interact with time limits for challenging or setting aside awards under applicable national arbitration laws, which in some jurisdictions may be considerably shorter.
• The 2021 Rules made it possible for truncated tribunals to continue an arbitration following the removal or death of an arbitrator, provided this occurred after the closing of proceedings. Under the 2026 Rules, this power can now be exercised earlier — after the last hearing or last submission — rather than only after the formal closing of proceedings (see Article 16(5)).
• The previous Appendix IV Case Management Techniques have been removed. However, Article 23(2) notes that in adopting appropriate case management measures, the tribunal may adopt one or more of the case management techniques described in the guidance notes issued by the Secretariat, taking into account the work of the Commission on Arbitration and ADR.
• A new schedule of fees has been introduced. The ICC has noted that costs have been reduced for arbitrations below USD 10,000,000 and that, for larger disputes, targeted upward adjustments have been introduced “reflecting changes in the scale of global disputes”.
• Pursuant to Appendix III Article 6(12), where an arbitration follows proceedings under the ICC Mediation Rules, half of the ICC administrative expenses paid for the mediation will be credited towards the ICC administrative expenses of the arbitration. This provides a financial incentive for users to select the ICC as the administering institution for both mediation and arbitration.

Comment

The 2026 Rules represent a welcome and significant modernisation of ICC arbitration. The removal of the Terms of Reference, combined with the requirement that claims be fully articulated by the first CMC, should drive greater efficiency and focus from the outset of proceedings. However, parties will need to invest earlier in the articulation of their claims, and tribunals may need to offer flexibility in appropriate cases where this deadline is not practical in the circumstances.

The expanded toolkit for urgent relief is a positive development. It aims to provide a more robust and flexible framework for preserving the status quo pending a final determination, through the availability of ex parte relief and the potential to bind additional parties for whom a binding arbitration agreement may exist. These enhancements bring ICC arbitration more closely into line with the interim relief available before national courts, which may increase user confidence in the effectiveness of the process, though much will depend on how emergency arbitrators exercise these expanded powers.

The introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Procedure, offering a three-month timeline for awards, is a bold addition that complements the existing EPP and reflects genuine demand from users for faster resolution of lower-complexity disputes. The increase in the EPP threshold to USD 4 million is equally welcome, recognising that expedited procedures have proven their value in increasingly higher-value cases. The express codification of early determination further strengthens the ICC's commitment to procedural efficiency. 

Taken together, these changes offer significant opportunities for parties and counsel — the 2026 Rules deliver a more efficient and flexible framework that equips parties with a broader range of procedural tools to tailor the arbitral process to the needs of their dispute.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.